If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Does He Speak With Forked Tongue - One Example
Ken Rockwell Said:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm Sigma announced an 18-200mm OS (stabilized) lens, but it's only f/6.3 (not rated to work well for AF, which needs at least f/5.6) and I suspect it has primitive focus, not HSM/AFS/USM. We'll see, and I avoid off brand lenses anyway. As I explained, the whole point of a Canon or Nikon camera is to use the superior lenses made by either, both of which are very serious optical companies, unlike the off brands. And Then Ken Rockwell Said: In 2008, Tokina introduced the best lens yet, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, which for about $500, is better than the best lens below, the Nikon 12-24mm. Read the rest of this if you like, however as of 2008, just get the Tokina 11-16mm. Its only gotcha is that it won't autofocus on a Nikon D40, D40x or D60; for those least expensive Nikons, get the most expensive Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for autofocus. This is just an example what myself and many others have stated. Which is correct and what does he really believe. It would be nice to be able to trust his opinion. Is there anybody out their that provides really accurate and CONSISTENT information? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Does He Speak With Forked Tongue - One Example
snip anti Ken Rockwell rant
Ken Rockwell writes his own opinion. Just because you can't fathom his dislike of one off-brand lens and his liking of another is no reason to "go nuts". Do you expect consistent hatred of third party lenses and unadorned praise for camera manufacturer's lenses? Or, do you expect to read an opinion piece about which lenses are good and bad, regardless of manufacturer? Either is fine by me, but at least you could state what you expect and then be consistent about it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Does He Speak With Forked Tongue - One Example
measekite wrote:
Ken Rockwell Said: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm Sigma announced an 18-200mm OS (stabilized) lens, but it's only f/6.3 (not rated to work well for AF, which needs at least f/5.6) and I suspect it has primitive focus, not HSM/AFS/USM. We'll see, and I avoid off brand lenses anyway. As I explained, the whole point of a Canon or Nikon camera is to use the superior lenses made by either, both of which are very serious optical companies, unlike the off brands. And Then Ken Rockwell Said: In 2008, Tokina introduced the best lens yet, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, which for about $500, is better than the best lens below, the Nikon 12-24mm. Read the rest of this if you like, however as of 2008, just get the Tokina 11-16mm. Its only gotcha is that it won't autofocus on a Nikon D40, D40x or D60; for those least expensive Nikons, get the most expensive Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for autofocus. This is just an example what myself and many others have stated. Which is correct and what does he really believe. It would be nice to be able to trust his opinion. What's inconsistent? He avoids off-brand lenses, but is quite happy to acknowledge the sometimes a worthy lens is available. The "best" may simply be "Tokina's best". I mean, 11-16mm doesn't even convert the same 2:1 zoom range as either 12-24mm or 10-20mm does it? And note that he says "for $500", which to my mind means that he is already setting his expecations at a lower level. Is there anybody out their that provides really accurate and CONSISTENT information? I would hope that pure lab tests, properly carried out, would do that, but as soon as you add any commentary to the numbers the results become subjective. Remember that what may have been "the best available lens at any price" in 1998 may not qualify for the same description in 2008. David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid that site; it's a scam.
Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will increase his
hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid that site; it's a scam.
bowzer wrote:
Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held. Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of the time, and I choose not to shoot raw..... Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow? David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Does He Speak With Forked Tongue - One Example
David J Taylor wrote:
measekite wrote: Ken Rockwell Said: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm Sigma announced an 18-200mm OS (stabilized) lens, but it's only f/6.3 (not rated to work well for AF, which needs at least f/5.6) and I suspect it has primitive focus, not HSM/AFS/USM. We'll see, and I avoid off brand lenses anyway. As I explained, the whole point of a Canon or Nikon camera is to use the superior lenses made by either, both of which are very serious optical companies, unlike the off brands. And Then Ken Rockwell Said: In 2008, Tokina introduced the best lens yet, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, which for about $500, is better than the best lens below, the Nikon 12-24mm. Read the rest of this if you like, however as of 2008, just get the Tokina 11-16mm. Its only gotcha is that it won't autofocus on a Nikon D40, D40x or D60; for those least expensive Nikons, get the most expensive Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for autofocus. This is just an example what myself and many others have stated. Which is correct and what does he really believe. It would be nice to be able to trust his opinion. What's inconsistent? He avoids off-brand lenses, but is quite happy to acknowledge the sometimes a worthy lens is available. The "best" may simply be "Tokina's best". I mean, 11-16mm doesn't even convert the same 2:1 zoom range as either 12-24mm or 10-20mm does it? And note that he says "for $500", which to my mind means that he is already setting his expecations at a lower level. He makes a case that it's superior optically to the 12-24 and pretty close to being an APS-C equivalent to the 14-24 2.8. Whether he's fudged his test shots or not I have no idea. Is there anybody out their that provides really accurate and CONSISTENT information? I would hope that pure lab tests, properly carried out, would do that, but as soon as you add any commentary to the numbers the results become subjective. Remember that what may have been "the best available lens at any price" in 1998 may not qualify for the same description in 2008. I've never found any reason to fault photozone.de, and they've tested a very wide range of lenses. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid that site; it's a scam.
"David J Taylor" wrote in message om... bowzer wrote: Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held. Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of the time, and I choose not to shoot raw..... Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow? He has not, because I know better. But many, many unsuspecting people read that crap and believe it. So whenever I see someone quoting KR, I caution them against using that site. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Does He Speak With Forked Tongue - One Example
dj_nme wrote in news:4966cbd9$0$28495$5a62ac22@per-
qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au: snip anti Ken Rockwell rant Ken Rockwell writes his own opinion. Just because you can't fathom his dislike of one off-brand lens and his liking of another is no reason to "go nuts". He said he avoids "off brand lenses" which pretty much means all of them, unless he wanted to be sensible and be specific, which he didn't. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid that site; it's a scam.
Scott W wrote:
On Jan 9, 4:42?am, "David J Taylor" - this-bit.nor-this.co.uk wrote: bowzer wrote: Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held. Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of the time, and I choose not to shoot raw..... Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow? If you are not shooting raw it sounds like maybe Ken led you away from the straight and narrow. Shooting raw is the wide and boggy track :-) -- Chris Malcolm |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid that site; it's a scam.
bowzer wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message om... bowzer wrote: Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held. Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of the time, and I choose not to shoot raw..... Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow? He has not, because I know better. But many, many unsuspecting people read that crap and believe it. So whenever I see someone quoting KR, I caution them against using that site. Which given the state of the web is going to lead them from the frying pan into the fire unless you give them some idea of where to go for better information. -- Chris Malcolm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE 40D GETS SOME TONGUE! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 35 | February 25th 08 01:35 AM |
Nikon, speak up TODAY! | bayydogg | Digital Photography | 15 | August 24th 04 12:02 AM |
Speak your truth quietly and clearly. | Gerry | Film & Labs | 0 | February 10th 04 09:49 PM |
Speak your truth quietly and clearly. | Alan | Photographing People | 0 | February 7th 04 12:12 AM |
...to speak ill of the dead is cowardly. | William Graham | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | February 5th 04 09:50 PM |